How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

Jonathan, speaking of that monkey thing, I thought you'd get a laugh out of this quote I came across :

by Robert Wilensky (whoever he is)
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

JD - that last quote in your post #1330 is the philosophical reason behind why I take the time to be on this thread, even tho I get blasted over and over. It has nothing to do with the scientific reasons behind why I believe creationism is true and the scientific reasons why I believe evolution is not true. [edited by a. - personally directed] it is a very important distinction!

I do NOT believe creationism is true BASED on my belief that the Bible is true! I really and truly believe that creationism is MORE supported by scientific evidence than evolution.

As for the first quote, I repeat, it was a philosophical comment on a philosophical question. It CANNOT be scientifically proven that God exists, or that He was behind evolution, and I've never said it CAN be! [edited by a. - personally directed]

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

JD - that last quote in your post #1330 is the philosophical reason behind why I take the time to be on this thread, even tho I get blasted over and over. It has nothing to do with the scientific reasons behind why I believe creationism is true and the scientific reasons why I believe evolution is not true. Please do not confuse the two - it is a very important distinction!

I do NOT believe creationism is true BASED on my belief that the Bible is true! I really and truly believe that creationism is MORE supported by scientific evidence than evolution.

As for the first quote, I repeat, it was a philosophical comment on a philosophical question. It CANNOT be scientifically proven that God exists, or that He was behind evolution, and I've never said it CAN be! No problems there - we agree!

Well then please show where there is evidence that creationism is more supported by science. I'll be waiting for hell to freeze over most likely - if a hell actually existed that is. If you want me to believe in your above statements then stop using bible, god and anti-evolution statements to back up your claims. Basically for 2 years you have been saying that "this and this has been wrong with evolution". There's either a problem with how the age of the earth is determined, or there's a problem with the fossil record being incomplete, or I'm sorry - you bring up bible stories. Show NON-religious/belief evidence to back up creationism.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Vegetation requires a little more than that, like carbohydrates for starters, that's what all life is made of. I'm saying there can't have been very big amounts of carbohydrates or other organic compounds in the earth. There are now, since the planet has been covered with vegetation for a very long time. Besides, the Bible states sunlight was created after the first plants . I guess that makes sense in a way, because if there had been sunlight before that, it would have irradiated the plants to death. We have vegetation to thank for our planet's ozone layer and without it, life on land wouldn't have been possible. Conclussion - sunlight came before vegetation and life in water came before life on land. Genesis states the opposite

The order of creation regarding the animals is the same as is predicted by modern science. First marine animals, then land animals, and finally humankind. That order is predicted by both the theory of evolution and the Bible.

My point regarding microscopic organisms was that they might have provided some of the organic material necessary for plantlife.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Also, it is quite obvious that the Bible doesn't mention microscopic life. No one knew it existed

No one knew Pangea existed either, or the dinosaurs. There are definite indications of these in Genesis. In one scripture it says, "all the waters were in one place." The scientist who initially proposed the Theory of Plate Tectonics was scorned for being "too Christian". In another scripture it says that the serpents at the time of the Garden of Eden stood in an upright position. Also, I've heard knowledgeable creationists argue that the 7 days description of the order of life's emergence was perfectly accurate, and even remarkable in its accuracy. I'll have to research and find their arguments. Trouble is I don't own the book . I'll try to look around for the information . . .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In many ways, the pattern is similar. However Genesis says birds came at the same time as marine animals, before life was created on the ground. Scientists believe birds evolved from (landliving) dinosaurs.

Some scientists believe that. Others believe the dinosaurs were all wiped out in a nuclear explosion. My science videos on the subject are forced to conclude at the end, "the truth is we still don't know what happened to them." I tend to disbelieve the theory that birds came from the dinosaurs. Also it makes sense to me that they should have evolved at that point. Flight would have been an obvious asset for predators, and they could have nested on the cliffs or trees on the seashore, as modern birds do. There they would have been secure from almost all predators, because the predators of that time would have been primarily sea-going.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jerseydevil

Since when is the bible a source for scientific study? That's the problem with your argument right there..."the scripture doesn't really point out". You shouldn't be using the bible at all as source material foir your argument.

The Bible's main purpose is not to provide scientific information. Nonetheless, it does contain God's relationship with man and his creation from the beginning to the end. It describes the beginning events and the end events of the world. One can learn about history and the future through the scripture.

Originally Posted by Jerseydevil

What? According to the bible it was just 6 days.

Also according to the Bible, "To the Lord a thousand years is like a day, and a day is like a thousand years." Seven is a number that is symbolic for perfection, also, which would explain its being used in this context to divide some of the major stages of the creation of the Earth.

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, just a couple more points. I view the scriptural passages of Genesis and Revelation as showing things from the Earth's perspective. Revelation describes things occurring like the sun turning to blood, the stars falling to the Earth and such. While those things could not happen in a literal manner, to someone seeing a vision or something, they would have really looked like that. When the California fires were going on, the sun turned a hazy red. In my view, a nuclear holocaust is described in the Book of Revelation, so the same thing happening again could easily occur. "Stars" falling to the sky, perhaps modern bombs or better yet some higher technology kind of bomb, could easily be this. This seems a reasonable interpretation to me both of Revelation and of Genesis. Remember that many of the Genesis 1 events occurred before humans ever showed up. It's very possible that Moses was shown these things in a vision, or that he gained them from folklore, which itself may have had its source in a vision. We know the Revelation events through vision, and knowing the events of far back history through the same method makes sense to me.

Now, if one does take this view of Genesis, then there was light for the Earth's vegetation. "Let there be light!" was the first declaration God made. One can easily have light on a cloudy day that is shining through, without being able to see the sun. The atmosphere in ancient history was very different from how it is now.

I cannot give a good explanation about the carbohydrates, but I would like to remind you chaps that we're talking about a planet that had some very strong differences from the way it is today. There are Christian theories about the carboydrates . . . I am insufficiently acquainted with the matter to debate it though.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by JD

But some people blindly accept that some mystical being just popped us up on earth - that is actually what people claim to KNOW happened.

I just want to make sure I clearly understand you, JD - is it your opinion that I'm one of those "some people"?


Jonathan - I'm thinking on your questions, but usually can't get any type of serious posting done on the weekends - I'll be back early next week

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Bible's main purpose is not to provide scientific information. Nonetheless, it does contain God's relationship with man and his creation from the beginning to the end. It describes the beginning events and the end events of the world. One can learn about history and the future through the scripture.

Also according to the Bible, "To the Lord a thousand years is like a day, and a day is like a thousand years." Seven is a number that is symbolic for perfection, also, which would explain its being used in this context to divide some of the major stages of the creation of the Earth.

And who wrote the bible? Do you know? can you prove it's thje word of god beyond any doubt?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I just want to make sure I clearly understand you, JD - is it your opinion that I'm one of those "some people"?

For 2 years Rian you have given no indication that your belief has much to do with science - but instead your need to believe in god and the bible. Sorry - but all your arguments basically go back to there needing to be a god. You can take that as you will.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And who wrote the bible? Do you know?

I've debated the issues before, and gladly will do so again. Always good to refresh one's memory. You'd have to repost this in one of the religion topics, though. Alas, this is the wrong thread .

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

can you prove it's thje word of god beyond any doubt?

And this, in my opinion, is the wrong question. How many of your beliefs are "proved beyond any doubt"? Is your belief-which with you seems to near a certainty-about the depth of understanding and the moral uprightness of the Bush administration "proved beyond any doubt"? You'll find that basically all science that currently exists is not "proved beyond any doubt". Political and economic theories are theories. There is strong evidence to support their validity, and this evidence is sufficient to cause people to believe them accurate. "Proof beyond any doubt" is something Insidious Rex also called for when debating with me on the subject, once. It seems insane.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I've debated the issues before, and gladly will do so again. Always good to refresh one's memory. You'd have to repost this in one of the religion topics, though. Alas, this is the wrong thread .

Not when you bring up religion constantly to back up your arguments it's not.

And this, in my opinion, is the wrong question. How many of your beliefs are "proved beyond any doubt"? Is your belief-which with you seems to near a certainty-about the depth of understanding and the moral uprightness of the Bush administration "proved beyond any doubt"? You'll find that basically all science that currently exists is not "proved beyond any doubt". Political and economic theories are theories. There is strong evidence to support their validity, and this evidence is sufficient to cause people to believe them accurate. "Proof beyond any doubt" is something Insidious Rex also called for when debating with me on the subject, once. It seems insane.

There is one problem here. Your belief in the bible has nothign to do with personal observable experience or with scientiifc evidence. You are merely choosing to BELIEVE the bible is written by god or is the word of god because that's what it says. But you can not produce ANY evidence at all that it is. I can claim that the Silmarillian is a historic document and is the word of god. You can't actually disprove that at all.

As for the Bush adminstration, that argument in ludicrous. They're humans and have flaws just like everyone else. To say that I have this view of the Bush adminstration as to being "near perfect" as you basically indicate - is ridiculous. Do I bleieve they are right in a lot of things - particularly with how to deal with the Middle East - yes I do. Do I think the Bush adminstration is right about every - hell no. Just because I don't come out and blast him or attack the government on entmoot - doesn't mean that I don't disagree with the Bush adminstration on some issues. It's just that here on Entmoot - there are enough liberals and Bush haters - to where it doesn't really matter on the points I disagree with.


What the hell political theories are you talking about anyway?

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with you that believing something without any evidence at all to support your opinion can be rather useless. It certainly is not compelling to others. One can do it, but if one doesn't have any reason aside from belief, the opinion is rather useless. Christianity does not fall into that category. There is evidence to support Christianity that I have brought up on other religion threads. I wouldn't say that the evidence is so good that Christianity is "proved beyond all doubt." I would say that it is very strong, however. On no other subject from history, archaeology, science, philosophy or other subjects is "proof beyond all doubt" demanded or provided. The evidence supporting the opinions of the experts in these areas is often very strong, however, I grant you.

I would put the case for Christianity in a category like this, of "very strong" evidence, but not "beyond all doubt and proven." There are arguments from archaeology, historical documentation, science, and probably philosophy too (will have to think a bit about that) which I can bring up. I will gladly bring the subject up again, but if you want to get into this with me, it must be in a different thread from this one. Creationism would not at all be the subject of our dialogue.

If you continue to demand "proof beyond all doubt," however, then I can have no more to do with you on this topic. It's a senseless demand, and I won't attempt to fulfill its requirements.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

"Proof beyond any doubt" is something Insidious Rex also called for when debating with me on the subject, once. It seems insane.

I dont know that I ever called for "proof beyond any doubt" exactly. Simply a reliable amount of verification (in the same way we have for say gravity or the existance of the planets or the moon). But with creationism you cant by definition have basic "proof" possibilities. What you would expect to see is a sudden occurance of fully developed modern animals in the fossil record as if they had all come into being at once. But you dont see anything like that. Instead what you see again and again and again points almost directly to evolution as the process by which life changes and adapts to its environment. So in order to embrace creationism you need to be ok with giving no evidence AND you need to ignore reams and reams of evidence that go against your religious notions. Hard to do.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you continue to demand "proof beyond all doubt," however, then I can have no more to do with you on this topic. It's a senseless demand, and I won't attempt to fulfill its requirements.

What IR has said is what I was referring to. However, Rian is pretty much demanding evidence beyond doubt about evolution. So if that's what she is asking - then I'm asking you and her for evidence beyond a doubt about creationism and god.

As IR said and which is my problem when discussin creationism with you and Rian and others is that we are requesting... "Simply a reliable amount of verification (in the same way we have for say gravity or the existance of the planets or the moon). But with creationism you cant by definition have basic "proof" possibilities....in order to embrace creationism you need to be ok with giving no evidence AND you need to ignore reams and reams of evidence that go against your religious notions. Hard to do."


Hence it is hard for me to accept your arguments for the existence of god or of creationism. As for evidence of god, archeology and writings aren't going to work. I can present things from ancient Rome - does that mean that Zeus was real?

[Rían]

[off-topic -- edited by azalea]

[edited by azalea -- off topic]

Please refer to the "why you believe what you believe" thread for my very compressed statement of why I believe what I believe (IOW, I could have gone on and on, but I compressed it down). Included in those posts are references to ancient literature verification procedures, scientific studies, and logical deductions. I hardly consider those to be blind beliefs. [edited by azalea - personal comments/ off topic]

Here's my opening post (there are several posts, not sure how many) : here. And a continuation of the post a few days later is : here and here and here. (again, some are multiple posts)


I completely agree with you that the existence of God CANNOT be proven. It's also obvious that the non-existence of God CANNOT be proven.

[edited by azalea -- off topic/ personal]

I have said, over and OVER, not only that I don't KNOW that creationism is right, but even that I don't KNOW that Christianity is right! [edited by azalea -- personal] I repeat - I do NOT "KNOW" that creationism is right. I also do not "KNOW" that Christianity is right. Based on a lot of thought and evaluation of information around me, I believe that they are right, but then, I'm entitled to my beliefs about unproveable things [edited by a., personal]. Evolution is one of those unproveable things, by its very nature of being in the past. You happen to think evolution (on the scale of one-celled-thingy to humans) happened. I happen to differ, based on my evaluation of the scientific evidence.

[edited by a. - personal] I've said OVER and OVER that I believe the data supports creationism more than evolutionism, INDEPENDENT of my Christian beliefs! If I saw compelling, ACTUAL evidence for macroevolution and beneficial mutations (the two areas that I disagree with), then I would think that evolution happened! It's that simple. [edited - personal/ off topic] I repeat - I think creationism is true based on scientific evaluation of scientific evidence, and NOT based on my Christian beliefs! How much plainer can I get?!

There was one more thing I wanted to address, but I'm out of time now, so it will have to be later. In the meantime, as thread starter, I repeat my requests: please do not make vague, general accusations about groups that cannot be verified, and please take people at their word and let them speak for themselves.

However, Rian is pretty much demanding evidence beyond doubt about evolution.

Wrong again. What I do think is reasonable to ask is that people differentiate between actual observed data and extrapolated, unobserved data, and weight the data accordingly.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

This is another example of Rian trying to explain why she believes in creationism, not by scientific study - but by belief in god.

Nope - as I said before, it was a side-issue about theistic evolution, that's all.

This one line states very well why Rian does not believe and can not accept evolutio, because to believe that the things around us developed through chance then means that "by logical inference means that God does NOT." (exist).

Nope - it only states very well why I am on this thread to expose something I think is a travesty - when people think that evolution is a FACT as opposed to a theory, and when people think extrapolated data is actual data. That just galls my sense of scientific and intellectual integrity!

For the gazillionth time , I think creationism is better supported by the data, independent of my Christian beliefs. If I thought evolution was supported by the data better, then I would believe that God somehow "set up" evolution to happen - IOW, I would believe in evolution and God at the same time.

My belief in God is independent of my beliefs about evolution/creationism. My belief that creationism is probably what happened is independent of my belief in God.

That is what I say. [edited by a. - personal]

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd like to lay some things to rest before going on with this thread, because these things keep on coming up and wasting time!!


I asked you, straight out, if you put me in this category - I wanted to see if you would make an actual claims about a specific person (which could then be verified or proven wrong), instead of just vague, insulting, stereotyping claims about "some people", and you wouldn't give me a straight yes/no answer. Instead, you modified your original statement somewhat to something that was more reasonable (altho still wrong, at least in regards to me).

As thread-starter, I ask you to stop making these types of statements, which are inaccurate and misleading and stereotyping and do NOT contribute to an intelligent discussion. As I stated in the opening post of this thread, politeness is required here, and as thread-starter, I intend to do my best to keep things polite

It's whatever rian - I do think that about you. This is baed on two years of following your discussions. You can claim it's wrong all you want - it's an observation though. Based on yoru arguments - I don't think you have seriouosly ever looked at evolution because it doesn't fit into your biblical beliefs. You can deny it all you want though. It doesn't change my opinion - what will change my opinion is the content of your posts, not the fact that you say I'm wrong.

I see nothing wrong with what I said. You amy think it's untrue - but I do not. I did not call you names or anything - so I see nothign wrong with my post. I merely made a statement which you don't agree with.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yet over and OVER, you either choose to say I believe differently (and thus call me a liar), or somehow just don't see it, maybe because of preconceived, stereotypical notions of how Christians are.

Preconceived notions of what Christians are like? You got to be joking me. Fro one thing you have this attitude of them versus you. As if I absolutely know nothing about christianity. This is the type ofd statement from YOU which pisses me off. So please tell me - what do I - this little ignorant atheist think Christians are like?

By the way - I don't call you a liar - I just thin you are blinded by your beliefs but you want to think you are open. That's what I think. Lying would involve a dilberate action. So no - I don't think you lie. I just think you have this strong sense to believe in the bible and god and creationism is part of that.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

So, is this thread limited to only christian views on evolution/creation?

let's have an eastern view

the gods created the world to ride on the back of a turtle,
the turtle walks on the backs of four elephants
all animals were born out of the body of the great dragon
who was slain in the battle with the gods

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

So, is this thread limited to only christian views on evolution/creation?

let's have an eastern view

the gods created the world to ride on the back of a turtle,
the turtle walks on the backs of four elephants
all animals were born out of the body of the great dragon
who was slain in the battle with the gods

a lot of the older eastern religions make more sense because they are keenly aware that the basis of their creation stories are metaphors of something larger and more profound. too many christians are still wrestling desperately to prove the LITERAL interpretation of everything they believe. Thats a failing in my opinion.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My belief in God is independent of my beliefs about evolution/creationism. My belief that creationism is probably what happened is independent of my belief in God.

How in the world can you have creationism without any belief in god exactly?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

a lot of the older eastern religions make more sense because they are keenly aware that the basis of their creation stories are metaphors of something larger and more profound. too many christians are still wrestling desperately to prove the LITERAL interpretation of everything they believe. Thats a failing in my opinion.

do you like DIY, IR? cos you just hit the nail on the head

That elephant/turtle/dragon story, the creation myth for most hindu and buddhist sects, (such as i ascribe to) is just that, a myth, for instance a great battle among the stars between the dragons and the gods is a metaphorical representation of the great monsoons that ravage the indian subcontinent, no one seriously thought that the himalayas were the bones of great dragons, nor yet that the animals actually came from those dragons, however there is a deep-rooted belief in the gods, but it has been long thought that gods came to earth long after the world was populated with animals, not that we question our scriptures